"If you were guilted into having sex, and you said yes because "you felt you had to", you were not raped." (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
63 ups - 40 downs = 23 votes
105 comments submitted at 18:31:55 on Apr 4, 2014 by WelcomeToNightVale
"If you were guilted into having sex, and you said yes because "you felt you had to", you were not raped." (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
63 ups - 40 downs = 23 votes
105 comments submitted at 18:31:55 on Apr 4, 2014 by WelcomeToNightVale
Manipulating people who dont want to have sex with you into having sex with you is rape.
Only if that person has no choice but to have sex with you, otherwise it's just emotional abuse. I'm not saying it's OK, just that it's not rape.
> Only if that person has no choice but to have sex with you
What if you make that person believe they have no choice but to have sex with you?
Prove it.
Does that make me a rape survivor when one time I wasn't in the mood but my gf at the time kept asking, almost to the point of tears saying that I don't find her attractive anymore so I eventually gave in because it was getting annoying.
Edit: I hate to go "omg vote brigade at work" but within 10 this post had -6 and every other post that was against ansrsts was also down voted within minutes of posting. Pretty obvious what's happening
> I hate to go "omg vote brigade at work" but within 10 this post had -6
Mine were all +4, then -4, and now are at +10.
He must have a TON of alts.
Yeah, I think mine are positive now. I usually don't care about karma but with how quick they were down, I figured it was noteworthy.
I guess according to /r/ansrster's logic it does. I mean if emotional manipulation equals rape then we've probably all been both a rapist and rape victim at one time or another.
Potentially at the same time, if you ever feel guilty after having a masty.
And complicit in the rape of yourself in doing so.
If they agree to it without being forced, without coercion, while they can consent. It isn't rape.
It's shitty behavior, but not everything shitty involving sex is rape.
Could you link a case or any legal definition that supports your claim?
Otherwise we may need to start locking up pretty much every bar goer in the U.S
(Downvote me all you want, the law is the law and all you are doing is spreading misinformation that down plays real rape victims.)
Except of course, if they are a trans woman and you're a cis man
Because everyones a child and cannot make up their own mind.
Rape is sex without consent. If consent is given, then it's not rape... as long as consent isn't illegally coerced.
I love this anti-SJ dichotomy where if you recognize that people (adult human beings, even) have emotional vulnerabilities or are dependent on other human beings in any way, you are a child. If you are not a perfectly rational, emotionless, stone-cold Galtian warrior, you need to grow the fuck up.
I'm going to honestly engage you in conversation because you seem to be willing to make a reasonable argument.
Could you imagine what would happen if we started passing laws to protect the emotionally weak? Could you imagine how not only un-enforceable that would be, but how subjective it is?
At some point; you really do have to grow up and face the real world as what it is.
Well said. The law (in certain circumstances) does require a person to have a certain, minimal amount of fortitude. If they are below that quite low level, their harms are their own problems.
I agree that the types of laws you just described would be next-to impossible to enforce, but we clearly do draw a line somewhere. Should I be allowed to follow you around in public spaces and shout sexually suggestive things towards you? I don't violate your rights or coerce you just by walking near you and saying words in your direction. Laws prohibiting that type of harassment are one example of (in effect) legislating against emotional vulnerability.
And it's not even just about laws, it's also a matter of empathy. I know this builds off of two things this sub hates, privilege and shitting on straight white guys, but a good example of this is when people like that say things like "Wow, you're so fragile that you let a word upset you? What are you, five years old?" regarding slurs. That attitude is toxic independently of what should and should not be legal.
I'll be honest I couldn't even figure out what point you were trying to make in the first paragraph. You make an example as a question and then answer it yourself? Could you try to make that more clear?
> And it's not even just about laws, it's also a matter of empathy.
See this is the problem and why many people make fun of the whole SJW. It is about laws because that is what matters if its rape or not. We don't enforce laws based on feelings; that would be absurd.
> I know this builds off of two things this sub hates, privilege and shitting on straight white guys
Lets pretend this sub doesn't exist and have a real conversation.
> when people like that say things like "Wow, you're so fragile that you let a word upset you? What are you, five years old?" regarding slurs.
A black man being called a nigger walking down the road? I agree with you 100%. A 16 year old girl being called fat and going home to cry about it? Time to toughen up kid; shit gets A FUCK TON WORSE.
>I'll be honest I couldn't even figure out what point you were trying to make in the first paragraph. You make an example as a question and then answer it yourself? Could you try to make that more clear?
ELY5:
You said that we don't base laws around emotions and emotional vulnerability. My example showed that, in at least some cases, we do and are right to do so. It isn't any more complicated then that. You're probably overthinking it.
>See this is the problem and why many people make fun of the whole SJW. It is about laws because that is what matters if its rape or not. We don't enforce laws based on feelings; that would be absurd.
I'm confused. I said it's not just about laws, it's about empathy. You then said that we don't enforce laws based on feelings. In what way do those two claims contradict?
>Lets pretend this sub doesn't exist and have a real conversation.
Yessir, did I do anything otherwise?
>A black man being called a nigger walking down the road? I agree with you 100%. A 16 year old girl being called fat and going home to cry about it? Time to toughen up kid; shit gets A FUCK TON WORSE.
If you have an anxiety disorder related to body image, or suffer from or are recovering from an eating disorder, being called fat can have very tangible psychological consequencs. And I'm not sure what you mean by that last part.
He was saying there are certain minimum standards we must meet in every day life to survive.
You completely changed that point into the existence of harassment laws, which actually proves his point because it takes a certain amount of harassment before it even becomes illegal.
If you are walking down the street and someone yells at you "You look stupid", that isn't harassment.
Google "emotional duress" or "in re estate of hollett" and you'll see that in fact, it is you who needs to grow up and face the real world as what it is: the law currently does in fact protect the emotionally weak.
Sorry I looked into it and all I can find is it being used as a basis for civil suits. (which by the way the standard is to compare against a normal person) Could you help me out and find one that relates to the conversation? A case would be ideal but any legal definition and how it relates to rape would suffice.
I am curious, is duress from the Hollett case irrelevant to the matter of rape?
>The petitioner, Erin Hollett, appeals an order by the Merrimack County Probate Court (Patten, J.) declaring the prenuptial agreement made between Erin and the decedent, John Hollett, to be valid. Erin argues that the agreement should be set aside because of duress, undue influence, insufficient financial disclosure, and lack of effective independent counsel.
#
>In this case, it would be unreasonable to conclude that Erin had "sufficient time" or a "reasonable opportunity" to make use of Brian Shaughnessy’s advice. Given the complexity of John’s finances and the agreement, and the disparity in the parties’ bargaining power, Erin needed more than one day to negotiate and reflect upon his draft proposal. Without such time, we conclude as a matter of law that her signing of the agreement was involuntary under the heightened standard applied to prenuptial agreements. See Matson, 705 P.2d at 820-21; Lutgert, 338 So. 2d at 1115-17.
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2003/holle119.htm
>Duress or coercion can also be raised in an allegation of rape or sexual assault to negate a defense of consent on the part of the person making the allegation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress
You aren't very bright are you? It says right on the first line it is used in torts. Do you even know what a tort is?
I'll wait for you to look it up. Google a bunch and try again. No worries.
The raspberry torts are my favorite.
Edit : jesus christ, I instantly regret posting this
You aren't very sweet, are you?
MAH BAD.
I guess we're all cool with fucking crying girls, then.
Is the Hollett case you're referring to the prenuptual agreement case? Laws surrounding these types of agreements are extremely outdated and probably aren't the best area to argue emotional duress.
Not to mention this line - "under the circumstances the party had no alternative but to accept the terms set out by the other party."
One of the requirements in Hollett is that the person literally has no other choices.
Considering just the topic of emotional duress, this is the type of thing that qualifies:
> defendant refused to inform a plaintiff of the whereabouts of the plaintiff's child for several years, though that defendant knew where the child was the entire time
Only extreme circumstances warrant this type of claim.
What do you think about coercive sex? What's your opinion on the best way to prevent people from having sex they don't want to have, but feel they have to?
No idea. I'm just responding to Hollett and IIED and the legal issues of coercive sex. I'm not here to debate how to stop it from happening.
>where if you recognize that people (adult human beings, even) have emotional vulnerabilities or are dependent on other human beings in any way, you are a child.
Not at all. It's whether you are responsible for it afterwards that is the difference.
No it's more that we hold adults responsible for their misjudgements and emotion-driven decisions.
Holding other people responsible for your decisions is what makes it infantilizing.
>consent
It's important to understand both what the word means and what it implies. Giving consent is literally just giving permission to someone but it's not always a black and white scenario. Crimea overwhelming voted to be annexed into Russia, did they consent to that? While Russian troops were patrolling their streets?
You can't consent to sex if you're black-out drunk or a child, we can probably agree on that. Giving consent under emotional distress or under threat of certain non-violent things (eg a break-up) is more of a grey area. Not saying you're right or wrong, just wanted to point out that "she/he gave consent!" isn't always the end all-be all
> Giving consent under emotional distress or under threat of certain non-violent things (eg a break-up) is more of a grey area.
Ehh, it's definitely not moral thing to do... but there's a BIG difference between that and rape.
I would be all for there being a new type of crime created that is less than rape, less than sexual assault, used as kind of a "three strikes you're out" type of deal for what we'll call "sexual misconduct"... basically all these grey areas (since there seems to be sooo many).
Someone just get's one of them? Chalk it up to a misunderstanding. Two of them? Maybe give them a little bit of counselling (but still nothing on the criminal record IMO).
They keep piling up? K, there's obviously something fundamentally wrong with this persons understanding of how consent works, maybe we should start pursuing a sexual assault/rape charge (or give it it's own sentence).
Yeah. It's morally bad to give that ultimatum. But that doesn't mean it's rape.
Also, you can totally give consent when black out drunk. The problem is that you won't remember it on the morning, and you can easily be taken advantage of.
I agree.
I just wanted to say that consent is not always a black and white issue.
That that mean we saw Ray Barone rape Deborah a bunch of times?!?
Apparently to you being charming counts as rape too.
So having sex with hookers is rape? They only want me because of my monies ;_;
What about when a rich guy gets a huge babe that only wants him for his money? OMGWTFBBQ rape!
If they agree to have sex with you, they obviously want to have sex with you.